'Polarisation' is everywhere in today’s political commentary, but rarely do we ask what causes it. Alberto Ruiz-Méndez argues that the real culprit lies in political discourses that force societies into binary moral camps, eroding democracy from within

What’s wrong with political polarisation in democracy?

Why is 'polarisation' the preferred term to describe the political climate in so many countries today? What sets current polarisation apart from other political phenomena that divide people? And is it a passing trend or a structural feature of contemporary democracies?

In recent years, observers have applied the term polarisation to a wide range of phenomena that involve social division, as if merely holding differing views on social issues were enough to qualify. But if that were the case, why don't we talk about polarisation in the context of music or film? Why does polarisation seem to be a matter of concern only within the political sphere?

Democracy needs conflict, but not this kind

The term polarisation was first coined in the early nineteenth century by physicist Étienne-Louis Malus to describe a transformation in light rays that causes them to concentrate in opposing directions.

In politics, however, the word did not come into use until 1959, when scholars such as Talcott Parsons, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Seymour M. Lipset, among others, began using polarisation to describe ideological and party dynamics, primarily in the United States.

In this political sense, we can understand polarisation as an inherent feature of democratic systems. It occurs when social classes, religious groups, political parties and others are divided along ideological lines or in response to a controversial event.

Nevertheless, academics increasingly view polarisation as a harmful phenomenon for societies. This makes it essential to reflect on what is specific about political polarisation and to consider its relationship with democracy.

A broad social plurality

Democracy is a form of government grounded in a broad social plurality of values, interests, ideologies, and more. This plurality inevitably gives rise to conflict for a range of reasons; yet democracy, by its very nature, seeks the non-violent resolution of such conflicts. In this way, conflict becomes a driving force for the advancement of rights and freedoms, as it compels dialogue and consensus.

In polarised societies, consensus cannot resolve conflict. This results in the erosion of democratic norms and social cohesion

Building on this premise, and returning to its original meaning — as a tendency for elements to concentrate in opposing directions — we can understand polarisation as a situation in which conflict forces this plurality into one of two opposing poles, leaving no room for dialogue or consensus. The ideological divide becomes so deep that people perceive it as unbridgeable.

Polarisation thus describes a process whereby a conflict arises in the political life of a society that consensus cannot resolve. Consequently, it erodes a democracy's norms and social cohesion.

Polarisation is a condition inherent to democratic societies, which turns harmful when the conflict becomes irresolvable. If we accept this, a pressing question remains: what, or who, is pushing us to this breaking point? What is the origin of today’s political polarisation?

Polarisation is a condition inherent to democratic societies, which turns harmful when the conflict becomes irresolvable

Mexico’s case: polarisation in practice

Let us recall the physical dimension of polarisation: light is an electromagnetic wave that vibrates across multiple planes. When light interacts with certain materials or reflects off particular surfaces, it filters in such a way that its vibrations are confined to a single plane, or a single colour. This produces what we know as polarised light (as with our sunglasses).

In politics, populist ideologies act like those surfaces. When democratic diversity is reflected upon them, it becomes flattened into a single plane — a single identity, a single social group. This forces plurality into opposing poles: good or evil, native or foreign, rich or poor, friend or enemy.

For instance, in our article Who is the people’s enemy?, my co-authors and I analysed over 1,000 morning press conferences delivered by former Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Our aim was to determine the meaning he assigned to the word 'conservative', a term he used frequently to describe his political opponents.

From the corpus of conferences spanning 2018 to 2023, we identified the words that most consistently appeared in relation to 'conservative', forming a pattern of synonymous association. These words and phrases included: corrupt, hypocritical, authoritarian, opposed to change, classist, racist, and adversary.

Based on these findings, one can argue that Obrador used 'conservative' to characterise someone operating in the realm of illegality and immorality. By framing his discourse in these terms during daily public addresses, the former president polarised Mexican society — dividing it between a 'virtuous people', whom he claimed to represent, and an adversary who, by being corrupt, hypocritical, authoritarian, classist and racist, he deemed unworthy of political participation.

Is there a way out?

Cases like that of Mexico have proliferated globally. From the rise to power of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to the election of Javier Milei in Argentina, political discourse has increasingly embraced polarisation — understood as a zero-sum game in which only one side can be right — as the norm.

Political polarisation thus has a damaging effect on democracy because it creates such a wide ideological gap that either consensus fails and conflict persists, or one position ends up prevailing.

Polarisation creates such a wide ideological gap that either consensus fails and conflict persists, or one position ends up prevailing

This form of polarisation originates in political discourses that seek to homogenise society by framing it as a dichotomy. It forces people to take sides and, consequently, reduces the possibility of dialogue and consensus to almost zero — with dangerous consequences for democracy.

Fortunately, we can still turn to dissent and disagreement to counter this trend because, although proactive attitudes towards dialogue and consensus are necessary, reducing political polarisation means embracing social diversity — and its conflicts. It is only through them that democracy can prevail.